tv Moyers Company PBS July 16, 2012 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
this week on moyers & company -- >> i view myself as a capitalist. i know that's a bad word these days, but i do believe in capital markets, if they're appropriately regulated. you need some basic rules and the rules need to make sure that when people do stupid things they suffer the consequences, not the taxpayers, not their customer. they. >> and -- >> everything begins a seed. the food on our plate. you and me were seed at one point. the little calf that becomes the cow. seed is the source of life. and seed is the source of renewal of life. funding is provided by --
carnegie corporation of new yok. cebrating 1 hun years of philanthropy and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kohlberg foundation. independent production, support from the partridge foundation, a john and holly guff charitable fund. the clement foundation, park foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb albert organization, promoting passion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audrey rappaport foundation, the john t. and kathene foundation, a more just and peaceful world. more information at the website. and the betsy and jesse sync foundation. the hkh foundation, barbara g. fleischmann and our sole corporate sponsor, mutual of america, designing cust ummized individual and group retirements products. that's why we're your retirement
company. >> welcome. every day brings another reminder of the terrible unfairness that besets our country. here's the latest that leaped out at me. "rolling stone's" report on "the fallen" -- the sharp, sudden decline of america's middle class. in it jeff tietz describes a handful of everyday people made homeless, now living out of their cars in church parking lots in southern california. once upon a time, one of them, janis adkins, had a plant nursery business in utah that grossed $300,000 annually. but two years after the financial meltdown in 2008 sales had dropped by half and the value of her land even more. she tried to refinance, but four banks turned her down flat. four banks. makes you wonder about all those big-time bankers at the other end of the scale, the ones who came running to the government
and taxpayers for bailouts worth hundreds of billions of dollars, then scooped up big bonuses and perks for themselves and went back to business as usual. and what a business. you've surely been hearing about the newest scandal in banking centering on barclays bank in london, and on something called libor. that stands for london interbank offered rate and it involves a group of bankers who set a daily interest rate affecting trillions of dollars of transactions around the world. your home mortgage, your college debt, your credit card fees -- these could have been affected by libor. it turns out some of those insiders were manipulating the index for their own gain, to make their bank look better off during the financial crisis, to lower their borrowing cost and raise their profits. picking our pockets. lining theirs. "the economist" describes it as the rotten heart of finance.
here are some of the e-mails that have come to light. one banker in on the fix writes another, "dude. i owe you big time! come over one day after work and i'm opening a bottle of bollinger." and another recruiting a colleague in the fix wrote, "if you know how to keep a secret i'll bring you in on it." after being asked to falsify information, an employee writes, "always happy to help." another trader jots down in his calendar "ask for high 6m fix," to remind himself to play with the numbers the next day. caught with its hand in the cookie jar barclays agreed to pay nearly half a billion dollars in fines to british and american authorities. and as many as 20 other megabanks are now under investigation, including citigroup and jpmorgan chase. one m.i.t. authority on finance says, "this dwas by orders of magnitude any financial scams in the history of markets." all this explains why i wanted to talk to sheila bair.
she's a hero to many of us for her long fight for an honest and accountable banking system. after years working on capitol hill, at the treasury department, the new york stock exchange and the commodity futures trading commission, she was appointed by president george w. bush to head the federal deposit insurance corporation, the fdic. now as senior advisor to the pew charitable trust, sheila bair has ju organized a private group ofinanci experts called the systemic risk council. among its members, former fed chairman paul volcker, former senators bill bradley and alan simpson, john reed, once the chairman of citigroup, and brooksley born, the former cftc chairman who back in the 1990s accurately predicted an economic meltdown. its mission, to prevent the banking industry from scuttling the reforms created by the dodd-frank act, and, hopefully, prevent another crash. she has a book coming out in late september about the need for reform called "taking the bull by the horns."
she's also written two books for children about money and entrepreneurship. "rock, brock and the savings shock" and "isabel's car wash." sheila bair, welcome. >> thank you. happy to be here. >> if you were trying to help some of those young people that you write for, understand this business called libor, how would you begin? what's the "once upon a time?" >> i guess i would try to explain to them that when you borrow money there's something called an interest rate which is your cost of borrowing money and there are different mechanisms for setting what that interest rate should be. and one of them is something called libo and we are discovering now that a lot of unscrupulous people were manipulating that interest rate apparently to line their own pockets. and that is something that should be severely punished. >> is there one thing in particular you've learned so far that caused you to hold your breath? >>s they one caused me to hold my breath. i mean, you know, libor always troubled me.
there's always been judgment associated with what some people call a fudge factor, there's always been judgment associated with libor, the libor survey. you were supposed to look at various factors, what your recent transactions were, what other transactions are,hat the market conditions are. you can use judgment. you don't have to tag it exactly to a transaction. but using judgment, and have a potential bias in judgment is profoundly different from open collusion with other banks to lowball or highball the rates to profit. i mean, these e-mails quite acknowledge that they were trying to manipulate the rate to benefit their trading position. and what's ironic is, the trading desk of these banks were probably hurting the part of the bank that does the bread and butter lending. because if they were lowering their interest rate that would reduce the interest rate on loans, a lot of loans that the lending part of the bank conducts, to benefit the trading desk. so they were even hurting themselves internally by doing this. >> so there are real world consequences to this? >> yes, yes, there are. absolutely, there are.
>> i mean, the "new york times" reporting, "as unemployment climbed and tax revenue fell the city of baltimore laid off employees and cut services in the midst of the financial crisis. its leaders now say the city's troubles were aggravated by bankers' manipulation of this key interest rate linked to hundreds of millions of dollars the city had borrowed." so there are real world -- >> there are absolutely real world consequences to this. there are counterparties through all these swap transactions which is what they were trying to manipulate, and those counterparties were being hurt by it, absolutely. it's shocking. it should be punished very severely. and i think there probably is going to be more information coming out about it so i think it's just starting, i don't think it's over. >> you say they should be punished, but the justice department the other day in this settlement with barclays let the bank off if it paid the fine. so thadoesn't suggest severe punishment. does it? >> well, you know, i think another thing that troubles me about all the enforcement actions that are brought, and there haven't been enough of them, but they generally, just, they tag the shareholders, right? so barclays bank, the shareholders ultimately pay
this. there should be punishment of these traders and higher up in management depending on how high it went. there should be, not only clawbacks of compensation but severe civil monetary penalties against the individual traders. make them pay out of their own pocket. it doesn't -- it's not much of a deterrent for them if their bank's paying for it. the consequences of their mistakes. not them personally. so i hope there is more of that. there should be certainly be more civil actions against the individuals and there may be criminal activity involved here too. >> let me play for you something said the other day by the former regulator, bill black, whom you may know. he's a hawk on holding banks, bringing banks to the bar of judgment. take a listen. >> what you've just seen is a cartel in operation, which -- did exist, and did distort libor for the benefit of the largest banks in the cartel. it is the largest rigng of prices in the history of the world, by many orders of magnitude.
>> that's quite an indictment. barclay and possibly, he says, a dozen other banks operated as a price-fixing cartel for their own financial benefit. what does that tell us about our financial system? >> well, i don't think we know all the facts yet. but certainly we do know that from 2005 to 2008 there were documented instances of barclays according to barclays traders colluding with other banks to influence the libor rate. i think just that by itself shows a culture of greed, of people feeling they're above the law, above ethical standards, basically justifying anything to make a buck. and i don't think -- i don't want the government setting interest rates. i don't want that at all, but i do want government regulation of how the market sets interest rates. and there were red flags about libor back in 2008 and then the simple fix would have been to say that if you submit a rate to libor it has to be based on an actual transaction that you actually borrowed money at that rate not your best guess, you know, today what i'm going to pay.
'cause the process itsf opened itself up to abuse, and then it completely spiraled out of control. so that, you know, that's one of the main thing's that's frustrating about this crisis. so many of the problems, the fixes were so obvious and we just didn't have the political will and fortitude to just tell the banks, "you've got to stop doing it this way. you've got to, you know, start basing this on an actual transaction." the fix was not hard. it was just never done. >> so humor me for a moment. i'm the proverbial martian coming to earth sent by martian control to report back home on what i can learn about this banking and political culture down here on this weird planet. and i come to you for help because you have this interstellar reputation for telling it as it is. how would you sum up this financial and political culture so that i can give a believable report back up there? >> right. well, i think we lost our way in the mid-2000s between free markets and free-for-all markets. we forgot that you need some basic rules and standards to regulate financial markets.
we deferred too much to bank judgment. libor is one example where we left it to banks to themselves to set important benchmarks. so we need to rein that back in. and the thing that worries me is that washington -- even notwithstanding all of this, we still, in this horrible crisis, and this horrible economic devastation that it has wreaked on so many individuals, we still don't have the political will and fortitude to get tough and say, "you can't do it this way anymore. i'm sorry if you're making money this way, but this is not a good, safe way to make money. you need to stop these types of activities." all the reform is still just around the edges. we just don't seem to have the fortitude to stand up to these banks and tell them they need to start doing business differently, profoundly differently. >> where is the indignation index in this country? >> where's the anger? that's right. i know. i think i worry that the public is getting cynical. i think there's been one of the reasons i started the systemic risk council is i feel the special interest lobbying is in a calculated way trying to slow
down reform, complicate reform, water reform down. and the public loses interest, and they become cynical about if the regulators in washington can fix any of this, and they don't exert counterpolitical pressure to get meaning reforms in place. >> there is a group at treasury supposed to be doing this. >> they are. >> the financial stability oversight council led by timothy geithner, and wasn't jpmorgan losing billions of dollars on its risk under the eye of the office of the comptroller of the currency? i mean, if their regulation, their oversight failed, what makes you think outsiders can have impact? >> well, i think that's a very good question. i think there is a real problem at occ. they are the main regulator for the largest banks. i think there's a very difficult cultural issue at the office of the comptroller of the currency in terms of whether theyrotect the public or whether they protect the banks. if they're trying to protect the banks, they're going to miss things, because their perspective is going to be wrong. if they're in, you know, and these banks have huge government exposure with all their insured
deposits. the occ in particular has a fiduciary obligation to protect the government purse, to protect the government exposure from these insured deposits. and the jpmorgan chase trading, that was being done with excess deposits. that they were playing around with insured deposit money. and yes, they have enough shareholder capital to absorb the losses. so this is not going to be an event that costs the government money, but it's problematic because these are clearly inappropriate risks that we're taking with government-backed funds that should never have happened. never should have happened in the bank and the occ should not have let it happen. >> given how egregious and consistent and repetitive all these scandals are, how can we say there's no political will? why is there no political will? >> i think the political money is corrupted. the congress, i think in fairness to regulators, when regulators try to get too assertive they frequently get batted down by congress. we're seeing it now the cftc again, the derivatives regulator, that is the one that unearthed this libor scandal and is working very hard to tame the derivatives market which is --
it's a terrible source of systemic risk. and the house is trying to back welcome back their funding, whack back their operations so they won't have the enough money to carry out their responsibilities. so i just -- >> explain that. >> i know, i don't understand it -- >> you've been an insider. >> i don't understand it. i think, you know, when in dodd-frank one of the chapters n my book is called "the orwellian debate." a it's about the way financial reforms, the discussion about financial reforms were turned completely upside down. so things that would help stabilize the system were transformed into things that would hurt, you know, people when it was just the opposite. you get this now trying to raise capital standards. banks need to put more of their own money at risk. that would help tame risk taking if they stopped using so much borrowed money and used more of their own money in their operations. that's what raising capital is all about. but the banks say, "oh, you raise capital, it will hurt our ability to lend. it's going to raise, you know, costs for your mortgage or
whatever." that's nonsense. but you kw, say it often enough it becomes true. so i think there's been a calculated effort to confuse the dialogue, to confuse the public about what is in their interest to do. and people who know and understand these markets really need to stand up and speak the truth and let people know what needs to be done. >> despite all of this there are still in washington some politicians who cling to the free market ideology. >> right. >> if i were one of them, and i was sitting here with you, how would you try to walk me back to earth? >> well, we did not have a free market in 2008. i am sorry, but we had crony capitism 200and 09. baed o basically anybody over $100 billion. we said the taxpayers are going to make sure you don't fail no matter how stupid you were. so that's not free market. and i think as a republican i view myself as a markets-oriented person. i don't ever want to go back to that kind of situation again. we -- there are important new authorities in dodd-frank that will make sure we don't do bailouts again, but mismanaged banks do go into a
bankruptcy-like process where they and their shareholders and their creditors take the losses, where their boards lose their job, their managers lose their job, their salaries are clawed back. that is all in dodd-frank. and so for people to say, "i'm a market-oriented person," but not want the market to punish mismanaged institutions, that -- again that's orwellian. that's just upside-down. that's not a market. you have to suffer the consequences of your mistake if you have a market. >> i think we're at some kind of dysfunctional crisis here. a gallup survey done last year reported that americans' trust in banks is down to an all-time low of 18 percent. and a recent pew research survey reports only 22% of americans have faith in the government in other words to do this. people don't trust the financial industry, and they don't trust the government to do the right thing in regulating the industry. i mean, isn't that a recipe for paralysis and eventual decay? >> it is. it saddens me greatly. i don't blame them for being cynical. i really don't. i fought for five years, made a lot of enemies. but i did what i thought was
right. and we did make a difference in a number of areas, not as much as i would have liked, but we did stop a lot of bad things from occurring. >> this is really why i wanted to talk to you, because you never really got your due. you wanted to break up the big banks, some of them. you resisted baing all of them out. you tried to warn everyone about the abuse of sub-prime mortgages. you saw the impending housing crisis and sounded the alarm. you tried to put a stop to predatory lending. you were, if i may say so, the champion of ordinary people, and over and over again, you were right and you lost. so people are saying, "has can we do? what do we do? do we take to the streets?" >> well, we can put people in who are independent of the financial sector. and i do want to say it's not all banks. i hope people do differentiate. there are smaller banks out there and not all the big banks are mplely cplicit in l of this. so i think people should differentiate. but there is a cultural problem, no doubt. and i think it's more in the trading side. on the securities side of these very large
financial organization than the traditional commercial banking side. >> is dodd-frank a good thing? >> we are better off having it than not having it. we absolutely are. there are things i don't like about dodd-frank. like any piece of legislation it's a compromise. i worked on the hill, you know, they say legislation's like sausage. so you get a lot of stuff in there, but we are better off having it than not having it. a lot of it it's up to the regulators in terms of how they implement it. and i think there have been some strengths and weaknesses. there's not been enough coordination. i think the financial stability oversight council, which is comprised of all the individual regulators, needs to exercise more leadership in coordinating these rule makings and prioritizing them. i had actually suggested the financial stability oversight council when i first testified on dodd-frank before it became law. but i had envisioned an independently chaired council that had its own rule writing authority to write system-wide rules. so you end this interagency negotiation that the industry frankly exploits. i mean, they
will play -- try to play one regulator off of another. so that's one of the things in dodd-frank i'd like to see changed, but notwithstanding that, fsoc, this council does have significant powers and they need to exercise leadership in getting these rules done. >> is it even possible to regulate these big banks now? >> well, that's a good question. i think they are too complex. i think the complexity is more of a problem than size. a bank, even a very large bank that takes deposits and make loans, i really don't worry that much about them. but a bank that's into invement banking and securities trading and derivatives market making and insurance in addition to doing the bread and butter commercial banking, i think those are too complex to manage. at a minimum, i think there's regulatory authority to get this high-risk activity outside of the insured bank, the bank where there's direct government exposure with insured deposits. it's called ring fencing, but i wish for insured banks we would just keep their business to making loans, you know, payment processing is legitimate, trust activities, those are the kinds of traditional things that commercial banks do.
this derivatives market making, securies trading, investment banking, all of that should not be done inside of an insured bank. insured deposits should not be used for that activity. whether that activity has economic worth or not we can debate another day. but at least make people who want to do those types of high risk activities go to the market, convince private investors to fund it. don't use insured deposits that are government-backed and there's no market discipline whatsoever in that. don't use those types of government-backed funds to take these kinds of risk. >> so is your new group going to try to -- going to advocate for these changes? >> well, i hope so. we're certainly going to -- we'll be presenting these issues. i mean, too big to fail is front and center. and again i think dodd-frank, just so we don't go too far into these fear, i think dodd-frank has started making progress in ending too big to fail. the funding costs, the costs to these very large institutions of issuing debt, funding themselves, those costs have gone up. their ratings, the credit ratings have gone down. the credit rating agencies as well as bond investors are
starting to recognize that there's a reduced likelihood that they wod get bailed out if there's another problem. so that's a positive sign. if you increase their funding costs you're going to constrain their growth right there. but there's certainly additional measures that can and should be considered and there are a lot of good proposals out there, some on the hill, senator mccain has one, tom hoenig at the fdic has one, senator brown has one. so i think we'll certainly, we'll be discussing all of those and hopefully taking a position on that, yeah. >> how do you break up these big banks when they're down to just six banks controlling so many of, so much of our assets? >> well, that's a real problem. and i think one thing that regulators could do as part of the -- one of the things dodd-frank required is for these large bankto smit what we call living wills. so they basically break up plans. so if you get into trouble how can the government break you up and sell you off in an orderly way without broader systemic ramifications? the problem is these banks have thousands of legal entities. the organizational structure itself is so complex, i've heard people call it a poison pill. how can you break them up?
you can't even figure out how they're organized or structured. so simplifying those legal structures and dividing up the legal structures in accordance with business lines to facilitate a breakup i think would be very good market information to get out there. baup i think, you know, shareholders, that's another possible pressure point on this. shareholders are getting frustrated. the megabanks do not deliver good returns at all and they may well be -- i think they are worth a lot more if they were broken up into pieces. but again shareholders cannot be empowered to break them up if they can't figure out what the organizational structure, how to do it. >> the shareholders in barclays and any other complicit banks are going to be paying for this, right? because there's -- >> well, yeah. they are. that's exactly right. >> going to be huge, billions of dollars in -- >> this is going to be a terrible consequence for barclays shareholders. i can only assume. and again, you know, the risk management controls, the internal controls are so much more challenging when you're dealing with an institution of
this size and complexity. break them up, you know, have a commercial bank, have an investment bank, have a broker dealer. it's a lot easier to manage. >> why do you keep going? >> well, i care about it. i mean, i think -- you know, the human face of this tragedy was something that, still troubles me. and the fact that we never really dealt with the root cause of the problem, the mortgages, and we still have so many issues there. you know, the interface between this risk-taking and the real world consequences that it had for main street folks is something that i find very troubling, and maybe -- i view myself as a capitalist. i know that's a bad word these days. but i do believe in capital markets if they're appropriately regulated. you need some basic rules and the rules need to make sure that when people do stupid things they suffer the consequences, not the taxpayers, not their customer. they. they suffer the consequences, and that's the kind of system i would like for us to have again. i do care about that deeply. i care about our markets and i want them to function correctly again, but they're not functioning correctly now. >> do you see the increasing and
vast inequality that's opened up between the top and the bottom in america and between the top and everybody else, do you see it connected to what we've been talking about, to the banks? >> yes, i do. i think with the inequality in income you've also seen inequality in debt. so the higher income people have much lower debt loads than the lower, middle income folks. so, again, this is something that needs to be corrected. we need to reinstate a culture of savings and wealth accumulation and have a financial services industry that supports wealth accumulation, not wealth stripping. you know, some of it's in the tax code though, too. i think there do need to be the favorable treatment for capital gains. no, i don't think we need it. i think people who work for a living, what they do is just as valuable as people who invest for a living and, you know, why should, if you're a hedge fund operator you pay 15% and if you're a young person discovering the cure for cancer you're paying 35% on your income? i don't get that. so, you know, i think equalizing, making the capital gains on parity with income or income produce from work is
something that could also help adjust this income inequality. >> i grew up surrounded by republicans like you. you may be the last one standing. >> well, reagan, you know, '86 we got rid of it, of the preferential treatment for capital gains. there needs to be some transition, you know. but it's -- there's really no -- i've looked at this a lot. there's no credible economic literature that says that the slower capital gains tax produces jobs. it's just not there. and it does produce a terrible income inequality. and it skews incentives. so what do you want to do? do you want to do, you know, be a professional investor and get your 15% rate or do you want to work for a living? i mean, why do we want to incentivize, we have too much investment dollars out there frankly already. and we don't have enough work. so i think realigning these tax incentives are very important. and this would -- i think that's a more direct way. you know, there's a millionaires tax that just adds more complexity to the tax system, and your problem is the capital gains preferential treatment. >> many years ago when i was in washington, we worked effectively with moderate republicans.
>> right. >> and you can't find many like you now. what do you think has happened to your party? >> you know, i think they're still there. i do tnk they' still there. it's -- but it does trouble me. you know, i worked for the senate in the '80s, for bob dole. and i look back at what we did during that time period. we did the '81 tax cuts, the deficit reduction act, the '83 social security compromise, the '86 tax reform act. so much got done. so i look at then and i look at now and i scratch my head. i think, and frankly this is both parties. i think there's just this rampant short term-ism that's kind of taken over decision making. people are worried about their election cycle and not making their mark on history, not being statesmen, not governing the country. there's this wonderful line in "the iron lady" movie when margaret thatcher, an elderly margaret thatcher is approached by a young woman and she thanks her for the great role model she was. and the elderly character played
by meryl streep says, "well, you know, back then it was about doing. now it's about being." and it does. it seems to be about having the job, having the title, having the office but not about doing anything with those government responsilities that you're entrusted. and i think that is on both sides of the aisle unfortunately. >> but bob dole and even ronald reagan believed that government policy made a difference people's lives. >> that's right. >> he cut taxes, he raised taxes once he saw the debt. that's gone. >> but he did it in the right way. he took away loopholes and the special interest provisions, which is exactly what we should be, you know, raising revenue through closing loopholes, i think. and everybody says this is what needs to be done. but getting the people to make the decisions and take on the special interests and, "no, i'm sorry, you're going to lose your special tax break, but everybody else is, too." nobody's willing to show that kind of courage and say this is what's best for the country and this is what we're going to do. >> how can my viewers follow your work? >> you go to the pewtrust.org website and you can find a link to the src. it's the systemic risk council.
and we will be putting there our call to action. and our press release and our members and our call to action is all on the website. we'll be making additional pronouncements over the coming week, and those will all be publicly released and go on our website as well. so i hope we can be a source of information, too, for people who are confused about what we believe a the appropriate reforms tt need to get de, reforms that will help them. i think the public education function of this group is going to be very important. >> sheila bair, will you come back when your group is up and running and full steam and let's talk about what's happening? >> sure. i would be happy to do that. that would be great. >> it's been a pleasure to have you. >> thank you. ♪ we turn now from one ampion of the public interest to another. from sheila bair fighting from greater oversight of the big banks to a global
advocate for social justice named vandana shiva. >> we need a new paradigm for living on the earth because the old one is clearly not working. >> the last time we spoke with her, she was battling coca-cola and other multinational giants over the privatization of water in her native india -- including the waters of the sacred river ganges. since then, vandana shiva has become a rock star in the worldwide battle over genetically modified seeds. those are seeds aggressively marketed around the world by big companies like monsanto to not only increase, but also to monopolize food production and profits. opponents challenge their safety, claim they harm the environment, are more costly, and leave local farmers deep in debt and dependent on suppliers. following europe's example, many american consumers are demanding that food products made from genetically modified seeds be labeled. monsanto, the world's largest supplier, claims intellectual property rights over its seeds
and usually wins when it takes farmers to court for patent infringement. but in india, monsanto claimed its seeds would produce bountiful crops and when the results fell short, many bankrupted farmers reportedly killed themselves. vandana shiva, founded india's navdanya movement to promote the use of native seeds, and she has become a formidable figure in all these battles. trained in physics, she's an activist and prolific author whose books include "earth democracy," "soil not oil," "water wars," and her latest, "making peace with the earth." i talked with her again recently, when she came to new york to be honored by union theological seminary. welcome back. >> wonderful to be back with you. >> it's an uphill battle you're waging. how do you keep doing it? what drives you, really? >> you know, we have this very beautiful text in india. we have the gita.
>> bhagavad gita? >> the bhagavad gita. yes. and there's a very simple lesson that krishna gives. that you do not measure the fruit of your action. you have to measure your obligation of action. you have to find out what's the right thing to do. that is your duty. whether you win or lose is not the issue. the obligation to do the right thing. for me, you know, i've grown up as an ecologist in a major level, from my very childhood. and for me, the diversity of species, their intrinsic value, their integrity is vital. the rights of our farmers to be able to have seed. the most fundamental source of livelihood in a poor country. 80% of the food of the world is even today produced by those small farmers of the kind that we have in india.
our small farmers are feeding 1.2 billion indians. we forget the scale of what smallness means multiplied many time, because we've got used to the dinosaur mentality. we only see the big. we forget that dinosaurs go extinct. >> you have obviously seen things differently. because you studied nuclear physics. right? >> i studied nuclear physics. but i also studied quantum theory. my thesis was on non-separability and non-locality in quantum theory. >> which means? >> which basically means everything is connected. because, you know, the industrial revolution and the scientific revolution gave us a very mechanistic idea of the universe. first, we were told "nature is dead. here's no living earth. how can you even imagine the earth lives? how can other species -- they're just inferior creatures of god. and you've got to have man's empire over god, over the earth." the idea that everything is this hard matter, unrelated to each other is still guiding a lot of
science. genetic engineering is based on that hard matter, genes in isolation, you know? genes determine everything. there's a master molecule that gives orders. old patriarchal stuff. the real science -- >> patriarchal? >> the real science is the science of interconnection. whether it's going to -- >> of what? >> of interconnectedness, of non-separation. that everything is related. farming, for example. you must see the soil, the plants, the pollinators, the food that's produced. all of it in the whole. >> let's take that to the system of economics. because some people have said that globalization, the movement of ideas, of people, of money, across arbitrary boundaries, as if they didn't exist, also reflects the interconnectedness of everything. that globalization is an economic equivalent of what happens in the world of nature in that everything is connected.
and you can't stop it vandana shiva. this is the way the world rocks. >> first of all, this is not interconnectedness of the ecological level. it's an extremely artificial, corporate rule on a planetary scale. some corporations get to control the world, and then all that's flowing around is commodities. commodities that don't have to be moving. it's still the old, hard, billiard ball model. you know? you load the ships from china for cheap consumer products in walmart here. that is not a world of interconnectedness. the world of interconnectedness would recognize that the rivers of china need to flow, clean and free. it would recognize that the people of china need to exercise in work, in freedom, not as slave labor in factories to produce cheap goods.
this corporate globalization, based on more, higher, a deeper reach of corporations in fields where they had no role, food, water, the air, all into commodities, you know. transforming the earth into commodities. that flow is not a flow of interconnectedness. and in fact, it is leading to a disconnection. if you look at the violence being perpetuated. the reason i've written my new book, "making peace with the earth," is because i'm watching every day. i get calls every day from remote areas. "please come down. they're shooting us. they're trying to tear down our sacred mountain of niamgri, which has -- for aluminum. we have an iron ore in our mountains. they're displacing us." every day there's a land war. every day there's a water war. because of the appetite of this
global commodity-producing, consumption-based interconnection. and i often say that what we have is an interconnectedness of the world through greed, which is not how nature works, which is not how humanity works. and an exclusion of people, a killing of their humanity. it is not an accident that with the rise of corporate globalization and economic globalization we have seen the rise of religious conflict, ethnic conflicts, where people get divided, more and more and more. so we are seeing human divisions. you're seeing a deeper division between human beings and the earth, and all you see is a global reach. we are seeing a drop in our sense of a common humanity, and definitely a collapse in the planetary consciousness that we need to have. and for me, those are the two elements of making peace with the earth. reclaiming our common humanity
and reclaiming our recognition that we are earth's citizens. >> the last time you were here, you were fighting coca-cola in india over the privatization of water. now your bulls-eye is on monsanto. why is monsanto so crucial to this fight over seeds? >> monsanto is crucial to this fight because they are the biggest seed company now. monsanto is privatizing the seed. they control 95% of the cotton in india. 90% of the soy in this country. they've taken over most of the seed companies of the world. >> you say it's all about seeds. and that it comes down to corporations wanting to patent seeds. how does that work? what do you mean it comes down to seeds? >> well, it comes down to seeds for the simple reason everything begins a seed. the food on our plate. you and me were seed at one point. the little calf that becomes the cow. seed is the source of life. and seed is the source of
renewal of life. that is where life gets renewed in perpetuity. >> so what does it mean when a corporation patents the seed? >> the first thing it means is a lie. that "i have created it. i have created life." >> "i, the corporation." >> the corporations claim that -- and, you know, we joke and say, a gmo, a genetically modified organization, which was the path to get patenting on seeds -- i sat at meetings where the corporations said, "the reason we've got to do genetically modified organisms is because it's the only way we can claim a patent. a patent is a claim to invention. a claim to creation, and it brings with it an exclusive right to exclude anyone else from using, having, distributing the patented product. >> what's the claim? speak from their side. what are they claiming? >> well, they're claiming intellectual property. and they changed the language. they say the seed is no more a seed. it's an intellectual property.
they make the society shift its thinking of what is at stake. seed is the first link in the food chain. and therefore, when you control seed, you control food. >> you say that corporations have hijacked our food system. how so? >> well, i come from a country where there were no corporations in the food system until 20 years ago. they weren't allowed be. our rules said food was too precious. it was an important source of livelihood. so we had to protect our small farmers. every law protected the small farmer. land rights. markets. prices. everything worked so a small farmer could have a living. food processing stayed in what we call the cottage sector, the small-scale sector. that's why we didn't have junk food and processed food. globalization changes the rules. and agriculture agreement is written by a former official of cargill to represent the u.s. public. >> cargill --
>> is the world's biggest grain trader. the second is the intellectual property treaty controlled and written by monsanto. and then you have the so-called food safety agreement called the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. every one of these are very highly complex names. trade related intellectual property rights, sanitary and phytosanitary. all of them are basically saying, "let there be a monopoly of a corporation to have -- to write the rules so that only they can be players in the food system." and the final step is the retail, where food reaches our table. walmart wanting to have foreign direct investment in retail. a big issue in india's parliament, a very big issue on the streets of india. so from the seed to the table, corporations are saying, "we want to be the only players." five in seed, five in grain trade, five in processing, and five in retail. that is a corporate hijack of
our food and a corporate dictatorship over our food system. >> but here's what you're up against. several activist organizations. some seed businesses. some farmers. organizations like yours. they filed a suit here in new york, challenging monsanto's seed patents. and the u.s. district judge here in new york threw it out, saying it was "a transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists. >> yes, that case has been a sad ruling, a very sad ruling. in my view, it's the same kind of status that says corporations have freedom of speech and therefore they can hijack our democracy. let them spend as much money as they can to literally buy elections. but for every case of this kind, there are other cases being won. we have won cases against monsanto in india. >> but if something like this is
as bad as you describe it. if it's a monster roaming the countryside. how is it getting away with it? >> well, it's getting away for two reasons. first, freedom, democracy, and choice is taken away. it's taken away from the farmer, by not allowing them to have their seed. it's taken away from the consumer by not letting them have labeling to say what they're eating. if there was labeling of gm foods, no one would eat it. >> genetically modified -- >> genetically modified foods. the second deeper tragedy, which is why i link this always to democracy, is the fact that governments are being hijacked and governments are being influenced. we stopped a whole agreement in nepal by building a movement. haitian farmers said, "we don't want this stuff." and they took it after the earthquake. the french have said, "we don't want this stuff." and the wikileaks show the ambassador saying, "we need retaliation." this is a seed war. this is a war. president bush and our prime minister signed an agreement on
agriculture, on the board of which sit monsanto and walmart. and they then sit and dictate the policies. that means that much more work for us to reclaim our democracy and our freedom. so they're getting away, because they're using governments to shut down alternatives and push seed against the will of people. and president bush is on record in a film called "the world according to monsanto," senior president bush, asking monsanto, "what do you want us to do?" >> quite frankly, we have no complaint about the way you've handled this. an orderly process. new things they do properly, and wait until september, no authorization, we may say something then. >> we're in a dereg -- maybe we can help. >> in india, monsanto, in
effect, controls our agricultural ministry and our prime minister's office. and so very, very often, we have to work very closely with our state governments, which are our regional governments, to defend our constitutional rights. to say, why should we be force fed a genetically engineered bt eggplant when we have the most delicious eggplants, 4,000 varieties? it took a movement, 13 governments, 7 public hearings to put a moratorium. the advisors from here flew in to try and undo that moratorium. >> monsanto advisors? >> u.s. government advisors. >> on the side of monsanto? >> on the side --the white house. the usda. >> department of agriculture? >> and the department of agriculture and the fda all have a revolving door with monsanto. and this is all on record. so on the top, there's monsanto, hijacking all our governments. and through that, trying to hijack our food supply. and from the ground, farmers, consumers, regional governments
saying, "we want a monsanto-free food system. we want monsanto-free, gmo-free, patent-free seed." >> now vandana, the other side of the argument is made by people like bill gates. bill gates says that genetically modified seeds are necessary to prevent starvation in poor countries because they enable farmers to double and triple their productivity. >> unfortunately, he's so totally wrong on this assumption that genetically modified seeds produce more. in india, monsanto came in with a claim of 1,500 kilograms of cotton per acre with their genetically engineered cotton. the average yields are 400 kilograms. our studies show that. the government studies confirm this. when you grow just genetically modified cotton, you destroy all the associate crops that were feeding the poor families. so it actually leads to less food. when you spray roundup and kill the greens that are necessary
for women to have iron, for children to have vitamin a, you're creating hunger. you're creating disease. super weeds taking over your fields are a recipe for hunger. pests overtaking your fields are a recipe for hunger. but worse, seed, patents are a way of getting money out of poor people. this is not a solution to hunger and poverty. this is aggravating the crisis poor people already face. >> you know, many people will hear you as they have the others who come on this, at the table and describe what's going wrong in the world. and they always -- they often write me on the web or stop me on the street and say, i heard that diagnosis. but what can i do? >> i think first ing is each of us has to daily ask a question, "where am i complicit in a war against the earth? where are my daily actions part of a devastation of the planet and with it, a devastation of the lives of people." because the two go hand in hand. a war against the earth is a war against people. peace with the earth is peace
among people. getting rid of the inequalities, the violence, the exclusions. and i realize that food is a place where we can all begin. food is a place which is so load witdishonesty and is what keeps a false economy of food alive. the subsidies that go to industrial agriculture. >> subsidies we taxpayers -- >> taxpayers pay. a high-cost system, which uses a lot of wealth of society, then uses our wealth to cheat on the prices and make costly food look cheap. so our choices are distorted. we go and eat the junk food that then creates the high cost of disease, the high cost of obesity, the high cost of diabetes at an early stage, the high cost of environmental devastation. and so we need an honest system. and we can begin by creating that honesty and that peace by relating more directly to the food we eat, to the people who
grow our food. to me, the beauty is, every time i come back to this country, there are more farmer's markets. there is more commitment to local food supply. even in the city of new york, people are saying, "we'll make local food. we'll grow local food." it is an easy step, but it is a very far-reaching step. >> you've spent time in this country. you know that in inner cities, it's almost impossible to buy fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. >> that's the challenge we have. it's not that there isn't a food stamp system. public money is being spent on feeding the poor. but then it's insuring that the only access the poor have with the money they get, again from public money, is to bad food. we could divert this to good food. there's no rule in the book that says healthy food should be a luxurfor the rich. healthy food is a right for all. >> for the last 20 years, we've heard and read report after
report of progress in india. the creation of a middle class enjoying its new prosperity. at the same time, we read and hear and see stories of people deprived of their livelihood and their homes from huge environmental projects, big dams, big mines, big infrastructure. i mean, it's always been a lot of poverty there. but are you becoming -- is that great gulf becoming a permanent feature of india in this modern world? >> well, you know, my small effort is to not allow it to become a permanent feature. but it's not that these are two separate worlds. they're separated in terms of the status of people, their dignity, their rights. but they are deeply connected at the levels of the earth's resources. the reason you have a few families joining the ten richest billionaires of the world in the forbes list is because they've grabbed the land, the electricity, the resources, the
oil, and that is what has left the other india poorer. it wasn't that the other india was left out. they've been pushed out. and that's why while we have some of the highest growth rates in the conventional measure of economic progress, which in my view is not a very reliable measure, we also have two of the most outrageous indicators that are linked to that model. the first is the quarter million farm suicides. if a quarter million farm -- >> those have been documented? >> they're documented. this is government of india data. this is not our data. it's official statistics. and you can do an overlay. and the highest rates of suicides are in the cotton belt, 95% of the cotton today is monsanto's cotton. so there is a link. today every fourth indian is hungry, and every second indian child is wasted or stunted.
which in effect means that half of india is being robbed of its future. and to me, this is not acceptable. that is why we try and build a kind of agriculture that allows farmers to have a livelihood, for the poorest child or the poorest household to have nutritious food. it is not easy because the whole system is weighed against alternatives that would work for everyone. it's partly because of the pressure of the corporations, but partly because of not thinking, of just being blind, of having been so fed by what i have called monocultures of the mind, you know? just turning to recipes from somewhere else. and of course the chemical industry will tell you only chemicals grow food. chemicals grow toxics. chemicals don't grow food. that only monsanto seeds will be able to remove hunger. and all of this new mythology becomes part of the policy framework. but i am deeply committed to make sure that this terrible
brainwashing that is robbing our present generation and our future generations, that we are able to work collectively to ange it. because while in your parents' generation, your generation, even my generations, the doors of a growing economy were constantly opening up. today we are in a period, where for the majority, the doors are shutting down. i work with people in spain, with people in italy. i advise the governments there, work with the movements there, or greece, or the occupy movement right here. they are realizing that what has been created is not going to provide opportunities for all. >> as you talk, i remember reading somewhere that einstein had a big influence on you. right? >> yes, i became a physicist because of him. i mean, you know, even as
children, you get to, you know, if you read nightingale, you want to be a doctor or a nurse. i read stuff einstein wrote and he wrote simple stuff that you could read it. that's why i wanted to be a physicist. >> and he said once, i'm paraphrasing it, but "unless an idea is at first absurd, it has no chance of success." >> absolutely. he also said that you cannot solve the problems you face through the same mindset that caused those problems. >> vandana shiva, thank you very much for being with me again. >> thank you, bill. it's always such a pleasure. ♪ that's all for this week. at our website, billmoyers.com, there's more about the subjects we've discussed -- banking reform, hunger and genetically modified food. also, woody guthrie would have
turned 100 years old this weekend but his songs are as vital as ever. revisit my video essay about what woody still can teach us about fat cats, bureaucrats and what a democracy made for you and me should be. all at billmoyers.com. i'll see you there, and i'll see you here next time. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com don't wait a week to get more moyers. visit billmoyers.com for exclusive blogs, essays and video features. this episode of "moyers & company" is available on dvd for $19.95. to order call or write to the address on your screen.
funding is provided by, carnegie corporation of new york, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. the kolbert connection, support from the partridge foundation, a charitable fund. the clement foundation. clark foundation dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. the herb albert foundaon, omoting compsion and creativity in our society. the bernard and audrey rappaport foundation, the john d. and katherine t. macarthur foundation committed to building a more just, peaceful world. more information. anne gumowitz, the h.k.h. foundation. barbara g. fleischmann and by our sole corporate sponsor mutual of america, designing customized individual and group